|QUOTE (Sina84 @ Dec 9 2007, 02:21)|
|What the hell does that have to do with anything? You either missed my point on purpose or you're retarded. The process of spearing thousands of captives on stakes has very little to do with one person committing mass murder within minutes using a sharpened stick. Let me get this straight then. You're actually denying the fact that a gun is a more effective weapon than a knife or spear? Jesus f*cking christ.|
This is tiring... First of all, that guy stabbed CHILDREN hiding in their classrooms, and any teacher that tried to stop him. That's not difficult. If a little punk teenager came into a mall and tried to stab someone with a spear, he would've probably gotten one or two people injured, if that, before he was either wrestled down or before everyone had scattered. But that's beside the point because do you honestly think he would've done this if he didn't have a gun? Do you think he would sit thinking "Ok, I'll go to the mall and kill as many people as I can with my spear, since I'm so adept at using spears, and then when they all lie dead around me, I'll... ehh... stab myself in the throat or something and die. Then I'll be famous".
Yes, guns are more effective when engaging at a distance, and when engaging someone who is already attacking or is otherwise prepared to fight back. But when surprising an unarmed victim, firearms lose much of their inherit advantage. Doubly so in close quarters. Most lethal force experts and law enforcement instructors will tell you that in a gun vs. knife situation within 6 to 21 feet, edged weapons are more dangerous in the hands of a determined attacker.
Firearms aren't the magical talismans you see on TV. They simply put a small hole in whatever you're aiming at, assuming you know how to aim. In the case of an AK clone, said hole would be roughly 7.62mm in diameter. Impaling someone on, say, a sharpened shovel handle would make a significantly larger wound. Oh, and edged/pointy weapons don't need reloading.
Granted, a bystander could have countered in an equally medieval way by fashioning a club and shield from a trash can lid and a broken bit of bench with which to fight a stick wielding attacker. So, yes, you're probably right that the body count likely wouldn't have been quite as high. But while said stick may not have been as effective as a firearm, this does nothing to change the fact that it is still a lethal instrument. Nor does the irrational focus on the inanimate object used in any given attack do a thing about the real cause of crime.
Likewise, in such a hypothetical situation where there are no guns available, the weak are, by default, at the mercy of the strong. In the times before the musket was invented, women, children, the elderly, and infirmed were powerless against large, strong men with swords and clubs. Sorta like that classroom in Japan. Which was my subtle point with the Dracula and Osaka reference (thanks for walking into that and preemptively proving my point, btw ). When any one side has a monopoly on force, or even a marginal disparity thereof, bad things happen. Be it unarmed shoppers versus a man with a gun or a damn stick; up to a government with the power to do whatever they like.
|He wouldn't, since you'd have to be good at it to kill people with a spear and the chances of f*cking it up completely are so high that he probably would've done something else to get back at the world, whereas if he had access to a gun which any asshole could kill with to some extent, his plan becomes plausible. You try and tell me the Virginia tech guy would've done just as well if he walked into classroom after classroom only carrying a spear, or if he would've at all. But based on your arguments, that's exactly what you're saying, making you a complete f*cking idiot.|
This argument that the type of weapon used doesn't matter is too unbelievably retarded for words, saying a spear is just as effective for killing as a modern rifle or handgun, when a modern rifle or handgun are the results of thousands of years of people trying to make the most effective weapon for killing.
Aye, he probably wouldn't have walked in with a stick because most people believe the myth that firearms are magic. This is in no small part due to hype from anti-gun propaganda and Hollywood which makes them appear as such.
No, were he not suffering from this widespread delusion, he might have just realized he could have killed everyone in the building with a car bomb.
Same goes for Virginia Tech, which, contrary to popular belief, wasn't the worst school massacre in US history. That title was claimed by a bombing in Bath, Michigan back in 1927. And that was "despite" the fact there were pretty much no gun laws back then, and one could walk into a hardware store and buy a machine gun, no questions asked.
Or, for that matter, kinda like the mall bombing in Finland a few years ago.
|That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. By your rationale, if liberty meant being free from government control, shouldn't drugs be legal? Shouldn't prostitution be legal? Shouldn't you have the liberty to commit any crime you wanted without consequence from the government then? You hypocritical idiot, the government is there to govern and instil laws, making everything that is deemed damaging to society (drugs, prostitution etc) illegal. They ARE controlling what you can and can't do already, and how can you even dare make that argument in a country like America with things like the patriot act where the rights of the populace are very limited and government control is supreme. You're saying that, despite all the liberties you don't have and despite how much the government is controlling what you can and can't do, that if the government decided that weapons designed to kill human beings were deemed too dangerous to be allowed in the hands of regular people, only then would you think the government was controlling? Jesus f*cking christ.|
It seems like, most of America, you couldn't give a f*ck about all the liberties you lose, aslong as you can still play with your guns you have liberty? Mentality of children.
WTF are you talking about? Personally, yes, I think drugs and prostitution should be legal. As should anything else which doesn't directly affect another person. It is not the government's job to be our nanny. And, yes, the War on Drugs™ sucks. The "PATRIOT" act sucks. This is why I'm involved in politics, and trying to win back freedoms one bit at a time. Given the ebb and flow between the two parties of our political system (who equally hate different types of freedom), sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. As long as the system works somewhat, it should be used.
Should it fail, and the government descends into abject tyranny, we must retain the option to reset it, so to speak.
|Learn to read. I never said it wasn't, I said it shouldn't be since it's incredibly outdated. Unless you still have the right to own slaves in America, I'm not sure.|
It doesn't matter if you think it's incredibly outdated. It doesn't matter if a majority thinks it's incredibly outdated. The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. And unlike slavery, which was never a "right," and abolished by amending the Constitution, nothing in the Bill of Rights can be repealed. Any attempt to do so would invalidate the rest of the document.
|Ok, you're right, I retract my statement. America is not a civilized society.|
Now you're catching on.